Question for Chuck and others

[thing]

Chuck has an interesting post in the 'Mary Meagher' thread.


Flying sail planes is hands down one of the best type of flying I have ever done.

Now here's a question for you then Chuck and something of a torch I carry; would you say that PPL's should have the first part of their training on gliders? I'm firmly of the opinion that they should. I'm not a flying instructor and have heard that some instructors give a little inwward groan if they get a glider pilot as a stude, much as they do if they get a flight sim expert. I have no doubt that my gliding experience made:

a) learning to fly powered no problem at all, apart from the R/T.

b) Makes me look at powered flying from a slightly different point of view to folk who have flown nothing but powered: in terms of I always fly looking for a field to land in, an engine failure in the cruise would just be an inconvenience and I understand how to spot land without the option of having another go.

I know that there is a very divided camp on this, and I don't want this to fall into the 'us and them' category that you often get with glider pilots and powered on this forum which I find a bit banal TBH. I fly gliders and powered and thoroughly enjoy both, they are both completely different disciplines and are for doing completely different things. You can't soar like a bird with outstanding visibility in an Arrow and you can't shove a couple of mates in a Discus and go to France for a crate of wine apiece.

Opinions from the great and good?

[9 lives]

I'll be one of the "others" ;). I'm not a glider pilot, nor an instructor, and although I have flown gliders with friends, I think my time gliding after engine failures actually exceeds my glider flying :eek:.

I believe that any flying is good flying, and the more different types (and classes)) the better! But when you commit to taking training, honour the training by applying yourself to that type, and your instructor.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

When I was learning to fly gliders one of the senior instructors opined that before beginning gliding, pilots should get a PPL so they knew how to fly and could then learn how to soar!

I think both ideas are wrong.

Either power flying or gliding are valid ways into flying aeroplanes. They are different and complimentary.

[S-Works]

What next, compulsory diets to flying weights and nomex issue.....

[thing]

What next, compulsory diets to flying weights and nomex issue

Why make navigating with a whiz wheel when everyone bins/sells them after the PPL compulsory then?

[9 lives]

Why make navigating with a whiz wheel when everyone bins/sells them after the PPL compulsory then?

So you know how to use the one on the bezel of your big watch :suspect:

Sorry, back to the subject at hand....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

When I was learning to fly gliders one of the senior instructors opined that before beginning gliding, pilots should get a PPL so they knew how to fly and could then learn how to soar!
I've had one flight in a glider. The instructor said "right, you already know how to fly, so all I need to tell you is that it's a bit sensitive in pitch compared to what you're used to". It was, too.

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi thing,

I learned to glide before I learned to fly power and believe I benefited from it in precisely the ways described, especially in regard to forced landings.

I certainly feel that low hours instructors, who have no gliding experience, also lack sensitivity to how the air-mass, in which they are flying, is moving. I well remember, when I first returned to powered flying after a break of many years, being told off for allowing the Pa28 in which I was being instructed to drift up or down. The instructor put this down purely to my failing to position the control column appropriately to remain level while I was able, by reading the clouds and the landscape, to see that we were in fact flying through rising or sinking air-masses. But he wouldn't listen - oh no, he was the instructor!

Having to dead-stick a powered aeroplane now would be something I now feel I would probably be able to take in my stride - should it ever happen. However so far it hasn't happened, so the 'proof of the pudding' remains to be tested.

To be sure, when I first started learning to fly a powered aeroplane my instructor had to de-gliderise me. At first, I was kicking the Auster's rudder pedals all over the shop and the Auster had an extremely sensitive rudder. But apart from that the overall experience of flying power was not too dissimilar to gliding so I learned power more quickly than someone new to flying ab-initio.

The gliders I flew at Dunstable were the Slingsby T21, (known to the ATC, I believe, by the name Sedbergh,) and the Kirby Prefect. Both of these were primary gliders of a fairly early vintage. As such they had an angle of descent that would hardly be acceptable today. The average flight, unless you were lucky enough to catch a thermal straight off the winch, was about 6 minutes. So during the course of a week's course you did quite a few take-offs and landings. You could obtain the most important advantages of gliding to subsequent power flying within the space of a week's course.

But that was in the sixties. The present day newcomer to gliding, I believe, gets to fly aircraft that have a vastly better angle of glide, so that more instruction in things other than circuits and landing can be squeezed into each flight. This means fewer take-offs and landings. So I imagine today you would possibly need to glide for perhaps much of a summer season to gain the same number of landings and hence the same amount of 'forced landing' experience.

Regards,

BP.

[India Four Two]

The instructor said "right, you already know how to fly, so all I need to tell you is that it's a bit sensitive in pitch compared to what you're used to".

Gertrude, I'm surprised the instructor didn't say "Let me show you what adverse yaw is."

I've seen many power pilots genuinely surprised when I ask them to roll into a turn without using the rudder and then seeing the nose yaw 30 degrees the other way.

[nick14]

Of course you found it easier and quicker than an ab initio as you had more experience flying than someone with none.

It is not in doubt that learning to fly something will give you a better start when learning to fly something else however to mandate it for all pilots is silly.

Any properly trainined PPL holder will be looking for a field at all times that is basic Threat and Error Management.

[7of9]

Thing & myself know each other, I agree with thing.

I still fly both disciplines now.

When learning to fly ppl in 2009, my instructor who was 22 at the time, after the first instructional flight, said I was the easiest student he's ever had. Solo in ppl after 5 hours instruction, skills test done 37 hours total ppl flying & passed! (10 hours credited from Gliding towards my ppl licence for full FCL)

Also just to add, us ppl flying glider pilots, also look for the areas to avoid near thermals & clouds where gliders are likely to be flying! The number of times I have been P2 With friends flying & had to point out gliders they haven't even seen!

Fly safe.

[thing]

It is not in doubt that learning to fly something will give you a better start when learning to fly something elseThat's what I'm getting at...:). Some people would vehementley disagree with that opinion. I don't personally, I agree with you.

I would also agree with 7of 9 in that glider pilots who fly powered as well (or the other way around if you prefer) tend to be better at spotting likely places where gliders are liable to be, not through any superior intellectual powers or piloting skill, just experience. No great surprise there either you may say, but it all adds to the 'fly safe' mantra.

Any properly trainined PPL holder will be looking for a field at all timesI disagree with that. Not that they lack proper training but they soon forget it. Otherwise donk failures in the cruise would have a lot lower rate of nasty than they do.

Edit: Of course I'm not saying that all GA pilots don't keep a weather eye out for handy fields. Maybe it's just the mates I fly with.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Of course I'm not saying that all GA pilots don't keep a weather eye out for handy fields.
Round here the "East Anglia Method" for PFLs almost always works:

(1) Set up a circuit.
(2) Look around.
(3) Work out which field you're going to end up in.
(4) Tell the instructor that was the one you were aiming at in the first place.

A slight mind set change is needed, and isn't necessarily always that easy to acquire, when flying in less hospitable territory. People whose initial training was on Vancouver Island are probably better at it.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

To answer the OP's question.

All things considered, yes I believe learning how to fly gliders first makes for better powered airplane flying.


that is basic Threat and Error Management.

Now I have a question.

What is " basic threat and error management. "

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I well remember, when I first returned to powered flying after a break of many years, being told off for allowing the Pa28 in which I was being instructed to drift up or down. The instructor put this down purely to my failing to position the control column appropriately to remain level while I was able, by reading the clouds and the landscape, to see that we were in fact flying through rising or sinking air-masses.

Ah but.... one of your jobs as a pilot instructed to fly at a given level is to compensate for rising and falling air as best you can to attain that consistent level, or as near to it as conditions allow.

I did, however, have a young instructor flummoxed one day in a PA38 of all things. I'd left my biennial too late to get my usual aeros guy for a session in our Chipmunk so did it with a school instructor in that Tomahawk. Not being aerobatic (the Tommy or the instructor) I decided some instrument flying practice would be a useful way to spend the hour.

Off we went, charts in the windows blocking my outside view, to do some climbs, descents, turns, combinations of these, etc, all with me on instruments. After a while I found I couldn't maintain straight and level. I had the correct power set, the correct speed trimmed, but we were going down. I pointed this out to the instructor and he couldn't explain it. So I removed the chart and had a look outside.

Upwind of us was a socking big North Wales hill. We were in lee-side sink. The instructor had never heard of it!

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am an active powered airplane pilot, an active glider pilot and an active powered airplane instructor so I think I can offer some informed comments

First several post already seem infused with the "Glider pilots are inherently superior to powered airplane pilots" hubris that is unfortunately both disappointing and IMO largely unwarranted.

One big myth is that glider pilots are going to be instant masters of the PFL. My experience has not demonstrated that at all. Glider pilots are not inititially well prepared to deal with the challenges of glide path control in the PFL case because they are used to having such huge control over their glidepath. You can get well away from the optimum flight path in a glider and still fix it in ways that are impossible in a gliding powered airplane. Also the speeds the powered airplane will fly can be up to twice as fast as a glider approach speed so things happen a lot faster.

Glider pilots learn to adapt of course, but proficency will often take about the same amount of practice as someone who has never flown a glider.

However that been said I do think there are good reasons to start with a glider license.

First learning on the glider will concentrate on the pure stick and rudder foundation skills without the distraction of a panel full of instruments and managing the engine. Mastering those foundation skills will serve you well in what ever you end up flying.

Second glider instructors are held near the top of the glider community in terms of status. Powered flying however is the exact opposite. They are often low timers putting in time until a "real" job is available. So the chance of getting a very good introduction to general foundation flying skills is greater in gliding.

[thing]

First several post already seem infused with the "Glider pilots are inherently superior to powered airplane pilots" hubris that is unfortunately both disappointing and IMO largely unwarranted.


Agreed, something I said I would like to avoid in my original post.

Second glider instructors are held near the top of the glider community in terms of status. Powered flying however is the exact opposite.

I've never considered that. Very good point. You can be lucky with powered instructors though; I was. They were/are all retired military instructors, indeed some of them were instructors of instructors. My 'other' club has an instructor who looks about fourteen years old (I think he's nineteen). I'm sure he's very good, he's obviously competent enough to pass the FI course but I can't help but think, maybe wrongly I don't know, that having a crusty old Sqdn Ldr with a squillion hours on fast jets and another squillion hours at one of the worlds top flying training establishments is a better bet.

[nick14]

Threat and Error Management is generally regarded as the overall competency required in order to operate an aircraft safely, at least in the jet world. It's a great tool if used properly.

Anticipate threats, recognise errors and recover to safe flight.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Anticipate threats, recognise errors and recover to safe flight.

Yes, you and I know that, but this is a private pilot forum and most of them are not paint by numbers taught pilots, and they do not fly jets.

[India Four Two]

BPF,

Great post. :ok:

SSD,

The same thing happened to me, on instruments in a Chipmunk, west of Shawbury. Full power, 70 kts, climbing attitude and we were going down at 200' per minute. My instructor was laughing his socks off - he knew what was happening.

We were about 15 nm downwind of the beginning of the Welsh hills, but there was a weak wave, with completely laminar flow.

[BEagle]

Chuck, unfortunately many things invented by psychobabbling airline trick-cyclists are filtering down into the PPL world over here.....:(

[nick14]

I think that threat and error management has a place in all flying, it's a great tool to have.

Single pilot CRM can be just as important as multi pilot CRM. It's not just for airline pilots.

[gasax]

Given that CRM in the aviation world stands for CREW resource management. I'm inclined toward the physo-babble definition of threat and error management.

It is simply dressing things up in a trendy new set of words. Works really well in the consultancy world (an area I directly work in) as it looks new and relevant.

Does it actually improve the management of PFLs - nope and in many cases it adds a potential for further confusion by introducing terms which can modify the way people think of problems. Adding in another way in which events can be described does no one any favours - particularly in high stress situations - when learned responses have been demonstrated to be much more reliable than 'blue sky' thinking etc....

[nick14]

If it doesn't improve the mangement of situations normal, non normal or emergency, then it is being used incorrectly. The problem with the "blue sky" thinking as you put it is that it is met with resistance or is taught poorly just because it has to be taught.

It was my topic of choice for my Assessment of Competence and I received nothing other than praise for it.

[mary meagher]

Booker Gliding Club at Wycombe Air Park, not far from White Waltham, which is tucked under the apron of the London Heathrow Zone....

Back in 1983, I turned up and had two flights in a K21 glass fibre glider with Bernie Fitchett, who was a top glider competition pilot, and member of the British Team. Wycombe Air Park (WAP) shared the field with the British Airways Flying Club, the Wycombe Air Centre (Wycombe Scare Centre), and a Helicopter operation which sometimes changed its name....

To say nothing of the steady stream of heavy jets passing not far overhead when the wind was from the East.

So we had to contend with plenty of limitations on airspace, and learned right off to keep a jolly good lookout. The gliding was aerotow only. So costly. I went solo in 3 months, and the following summer achieved the Silver Badge qualification, which involved a 50 kilometer trip in a basic sort of glider, probably about 27 to one glide performance. A gain of height from lowest point, I seem to remember 1,000 meters. And ENDURANCE -
staying aloft - for FIVE HOURS.
A lot of experience, then. And only a minimum of hours required to gain the Private Pilots License...I recall was it 8 hours? not a lot, anyhow.
WAP was handy to make the transition, after learning to fly gliders, to
earn the PPL at the school of your choice...

As others have mentioned, the only problem was dealing with radio yak. We already knew how to takeoff in formation (on the end of a rope) and to do an emergency landing - how to navigate (follow the motorway), and most particularly learned to interpret weather.

Since then I became a gliding instructor, tug pilot, and got the instrument rating in Texas, where petrol was cheaper! and the enroute controllers friendly, and the landings were free! Meanwhile, back in the UK, I joined a farmers gliding club, with winch launches (cheaper, scarier, I dare anyone reading this to have a go on a winch launch!). If you don't find lift, it is a five minute flight, so lots of practice taking off and landing.

Certainly the gliding is much more challenging in every way, and I have flown in competition, in mountain wave, along the coastline of Devon and Cornwall, so scary and beautiful. I bought a Supercub (with a towhook, of course) and flew it to Spain by myself, to France with a friend, to Ireland, with another friend, where it got stuck in a bog....

And now? it is my great pleasure to introduce teenagers to gliding. I help out on the ground, not in the air. Passing the torch. I no longer fly Pilot in Charge, but looking at the chart for tomorrow, these low pressure cu-nimbs should relent, and the day should be a good one. Roll on summer!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Given that CRM in the aviation world stands for CREW resource management.

It boggles the mind to know that simple fact escapes the slaves to physo-babble.

I'm inclined toward the physo-babble definition of threat and error management.

It is simply dressing things up in a trendy new set of words. Works really well in the consultancy world (an area I directly work in) as it looks new and relevant.

The alphabet soup of acronyms that just keeps expanding in aviation is nothing more than empire building for those who like to make flyig more complex than it really is.

[nick14]

Read the CAA CAP737, and any other reasonable document regarding CRM, it places equal importance on CRM in both single pilot and multi pilot operations.

If you feel that a single pilot is not a crew and doesn't interact with others then you have a very narrow minded way of operating. What about flight instruction? What about ATC, other aircraft inthe circuit/local area?

[gasax]

The emperor's new clothes.

There are a number of people making a good living from dressing up things anyone with any level of sentience already knew.

It was my topic of choice for my Assessment of Competence and I received nothing other than praise for it - seems to say it all, do you mean you passed?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you feel that a single pilot is not a crew and doesn't interact with others then you have a very narrow minded way of operating.

And you have a very arrogant attitude making such a comment about pilots you do not know.

What about flight instruction?

That is a straw man example.


What about ATC, other aircraft inthe circuit/local area?

They are not sitting in your airplane... you keep digging though.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think it is unfortunate that the original poster asked about gliding and we are now in a slanging match about flight safety philosophies. Chuck knows exactly what TEM is, so I have to wonder what the motivation for asking the leading question was ........

Back to the topic at hand

One point which hasn't really been touched on is that powered aircraft flying training is a business and you are the customer while gliding is more a hobby with a huge volunteer "club" aspect.

By that I mean everyone is expected to help out the gliding operations and so you don't just turn up and go for a glider lesson. A glider lesson is really going to be an all day event of which only a part will be in the air because you will be helping get the gliders out to the flight line, retrieve ropes , run wing tips etc etc.

For me that is part of the appeal as there socializing at the aerodrome and mucking in to get the gliders airbourne is part of the fun.

If that does not really appeal to you, powered flying from the outset is probably best as you can generally book a lesson show up, do the briefing, go flying, and then go home.

[nick14]

Just because they are not sitting in your aeroplane doesn't mean they don't affect you.

I apologise for the narrow minded comment it was not appropriate.

Weather?

[thing]

I think it is unfortunate that the original poster asked about gliding and we are now in a slanging match about flight safety philosophies.

By the second page as well! Is this a Pprune record? :)

I know some people don't like thread drift but as the OP please continue. I intend to stir some kind of debate but was unsure about what direction it would take.

[Piper.Classique]

Not great or even very good. I do fly as much as I can in a variety of aerodynes and aerostats.
All flying is valuable, and all are equally valid means of getting into the air. Please can we be pilots, as opposed to glider pilots, balloon pilots, glider pilots, microlight pilots?
There are as many reasons for flying as there are aircraft, I think.
Some aircraft are better for teaching handling and judgement, some for moving heavy loads, others for simply having a pleasant amble around the sky.
In my opinion, and for what it is worth, it doesn't matter whether you fly a glider, a Cessna, a Tiger moth, or a weedhopper. Just do the best you can with what you have, and try to learn something new on every flight.

My PERSONAL and biased opinion is that a glider is a good way to learn judgement for flying gliders. It's not a stepping stone or an inferior activity, rather a near approach to being a bird.

A hot air balloon teaches appreciation of the finer points of meteorology, and a light aircraft is great for unreliable travel and meeting people. I don't think a forced landing in an aeroplane bears much relationship to a field landing in a glider. It's like the difference between consensual sex and rape.

Anyway, please remember that its supposed to be fun....I have fun in a standard Mucha, a tiny hot air balloon, and a supercub. I feel very fortunate to be able to do this, and hope to continue learning in all of them.

[thing]

I don't think a forced landing in an aeroplane bears much relationship to a field landing in a glider.

You've never flown a T21 then...:)

The language you use is very interesting and serves to illustrate a point. 'Forced' landing in a light aircraft and 'field' landing in a glider. Perhaps this is one of the main differences in mental approach. I wouldn't see a power off landing in a field other than the one you thought you were going to land in as any different to a field landing in a glider in a field other than the one you thought you were going to land in.

It's the 'Engine failure this is an emergency' mode that is the crux. It's not an emergency, it's an out of the normal situation that requires a field landing. If gliders land in fields because they have run out of sky why don't we call them forced landings? It's an aircraft, it's landing in a field, it's not where it intended to land. That's all.

Let's not split hairs here by the way, I'm talking about engine failure in the cruise over reasonable terrain (IE most of the UK) not an EFATO 200' up in the Rocky Mountains.

[Pilot DAR]

I think it is unfortunate that the original poster asked about gliding and we are now in a slanging match about flight safety philosophies.

Indeed...

Those who would like to discuss flight safety philosophies are encouraged to start a new thread on that topic...

[Big Pistons Forever]

You've never flown a T21 then...:)



It's the 'Engine failure this is an emergency' mode that is the crux. It's not an emergency, it's an out of the normal situation that requires a field landing. If gliders land in fields because they have run out of sky why don't we call them forced landings? It's an aircraft, it's landing in a field, it's not where it intended to land. That's all.

.

I think you are giving an apples to oranges comparison.

Lets compare a gliding landing between your T 21 and a C 172

Best Glide C 172 65 kts T 21 37 kts

Min Sink C 172 600 ft Min, T 21 175 ft/min

So the T 21 pilot will have 3 1/2 times the amount of time to figure out his landing and will arrive with about 1/12 th energy to dissipate in the run out.

The T 21 has a landing skid and a low pressure tyre making an upset on landing much more unlikely than a C 172 with a tall tricycle gear and higher pressure tyres.

The bottom line is the glider is designed to land in any field the C 172 is not. " Field" landings were not a design consideration because it has an engine to get it to an airport. That is why "forced landings" is in the C 172 POH in the emergency section. not in the Normal operating section.

To say an engine failure in a C 172 is not an emergency is IMO irresponsible.

That being said, like all the other bad things that can happen, an engine failure can be managed to a successful conclusion, that is no gets hurt, if properly handled. This requires a disciplined approach to operating the aircraft and a personal commitment to attain and then maintain a sufficiently high skill level that all emergencies can be effectively dealt with.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Seeing as this thread was directed partly at me asking my thoughts on flying I want to add to this comment I made.


Flying sail planes is hands down one of the best type of flying I have ever done.

For pure pleasure I think Gyroplanes are number one for me, followed by Sail Planes, followed by helicopters, followed by aerobatic airplanes, followed by amphibious airplanes, followed by light to medium fixed wing airplanes....

....and last would be heavy aircraft that are flown by the paint by numbers method of SOP's and all those other acronyms.

There that is my slant on flying devices. :ok:

[BEagle]

Flying sail planes is hands down one of the best type of flying I have ever done.

Hmmm. Single seat Hawker Hunter, Summer of '76, low level over Wales..... Nothing else comes close :ok:!!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Nothing else comes close


Did you get neutered?

[thing]

I think you are giving an apples to oranges comparison.Yes, I'm perhaps being slightly provocative. It is as you rightly point out completely different in technique and outcome in terms of potential damge to the aircraft, in that we expect to pack our glider into a trailer after a field landing whereas we want to walk away from the powered aircraft in one piece. I can't remember (it may have been you) who said it but once the engine quits the aircraft belongs to the insurance company.

Edit: by the way would you still have the same opinion if the engine failure was in a Cub with tundra tyres instead of a 172? Both powered aircraft after all. Plenty of Cubs knocking around.

I understand what you are saying but I still stand by my assertion that the mental picture we give vanilla PPLs of engine failure is wrong. It's not something that may cause imminent death, it's something that unless you are completely out of luck will lead to a safe and successful outcome, for you if not for the aircraft. It's nothing to worry or loose sleep about. You could say the same for field landing a glider. Many glider pilots have come unstuck purely through bad luck putting down in a field. Again I must stress that I'm putting a UK centric view on this. Most of the UK has fields you can put a Jumbo down in. Fields we are not in short supply of.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Thing

I think we are basically on the same page. With respect to gliders my contention that care must be taken with comparison to powered aircraft is meant as a generalization. If Derek Piggott was flying a C 172 and the engine failed I expect we would find the undamaged aircraft neatly parked in front of the local with him inside enjoying a pie and fresh pint :)

My contention in all of the threads I have posted on the engine failure issue is that, in general, unwarranted attention is given to the engine failure scenario in GA, IMO to the detriment of the things that are actually much more likely to cause an aircraft to be wrecked.

Yes I believe an engine failure is an emergency. However like any other emergency we should reduce its probability by proactive management of the factors that could cause the engine to fail and reduce the severity of the outcome if the engine were to fail by attaining and maintaining good flying skills.

[thing]

we should reduce its probability by proactive management of the factors that could cause the engine to fail and reduce the severity of the outcome if the engine were to fail by attaining and maintaining good flying skill

Well put. That's almost along the lines of the classic 'A superior pilot uses his superior knowledge to stay out of situations that require the use of his superior skills.' :)

[Piper.Classique]

You've never flown a T21 then...

The language you use is very interesting and serves to illustrate a point. 'Forced' landing in a light aircraft and 'field' landing in a glider. Perhaps this is one of the main differences in mental approach. I wouldn't see a power off landing in a field other than the one you thought you were going to land in as any different to a field landing in a glider in a field other than the one you thought you were going to land in.

I have flown a T21. I have done my silver distance in a Grunau Baby, if it comes to willy waggling (Sorry, deficient in the willy department, can I show you something else?) ;)

Of course there is a difference.......Sorry you can't see it. Big Pistons said what I wanted to there.

In another post you ask would it be different in a Cub, rather than a C172. Of couse it would, but it's different sorts of apples, not apples and bananas.
A forced landing in an aircraft is not the same as a field landing in a glider. It shouldn't be life threatening, but it sure isn't routine.

[7of9]

No second chances | Flight Safety Australia (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2015/04/no-second-chances/)

Backs up some of what's been covered on here.

[Big Pistons Forever]

No second chances | Flight Safety Australia (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2015/04/no-second-chances/)

Backs up some of what's been covered on here.

from the article

‘We stall the aircraft onto the runway,’ explains Graham. It’s another example of energy management—we will run out of lift, and then bring the stick back to pin the tail down. Eventually, we’ll use up all the energy.’ And indeed we do, and I soon realise there’s no energy left to get us back to the hangar.

huh :confused:

[9 lives]

As it is a nice thing to reduce to idle power at some point before you land, even a power plane landing is a gliding landing. The availability of engine power should be what is giving you much more choice in where you land, not so much how you land.

I do like the article for its references to actually flying the aircraft.